What the HELL is going on with Henrik Lundqvist?

[TollefsenFan]

People forget there are teams in the league with **** goaltending. Hell, people forget there are other teams in the league

True. Edmonton for example got much more firepower upfront than us, but a little worse D and CRAPPPY goaltending. When Bryz 2013 is Your best goalie, then ur trouble.

More important is the fact that Talbot hasnt proven anything rly. So many goalies has a few good months followed by years of sucking.

 

[RangersHank*]

True. Edmonton for example got much more firepower upfront than us, but a little worse D and CRAPPPY goaltending. When Bryz 2013 is Your best goalie, then ur trouble.

More important is the fact that Talbot hasnt proven anything rly. So many goalies has a few good months followed by years of sucking.

Its just an overreaction by some people. Hank is having a bad season, it sucks but good thing we have Talbot who is playing great. Doesnt mean Hank should be thrown under the bus though. If Hank hit FA, half the league would have made offers, especially Philly and probably Edmonton. Goaltending is important, maybe not to a team like Chicago who is filled with talent but to us it is. Its good and bad that our best player is a goalie but thats what happens when we have crap management. Any other team would have locked Hank up too. 8.5 is alot but with the cap going up it is manageable and i dont mind giving Hank 8.5 mil because he has earned it.

Just surprising that Hank is being **** on so much this year, kind of like Caps fans ******** on Ovechkin last year when he was slumping, it happens but you stick through it. If some of these people ran the team, we would have new players every few months because its like a crime to be in a slump here. Hank is worth 8.5 just like people say Phaneuf is worth 7.5 and just like people saying Callahan is worth 5 mil. I'll take Hank and his 8.5 over Phaneuf and/or Callahan at 7.5 or 5. Teams lock up their best players and Sather did. Be happy. A couple more mil isnt doing **** for this team but signing the next Pyatt or Pouliot.

 

[TollefsenFan]

Its just an overreaction by some people. Hank is having a bad season, it sucks but good thing we have Talbot who is playing great. Doesnt mean Hank should be thrown under the bus though. If Hank hit FA, half the league would have made offers, especially Philly and probably Edmonton. Goaltending is important, maybe not to a team like Chicago who is filled with talent but to us it is. Its good and bad that our best player is a goalie but thats what happens when we have crap management. Any other team would have locked Hank up too. 8.5 is alot but with the cap going up it is manageable and i dont mind giving Hank 8.5 mil because he has earned it.

Just surprising that Hank is being **** on so much this year, kind of like Caps fans ******** on Ovechkin last year when he was slumping, it happens but you stick through it. If some of these people ran the team, we would have new players every few months because its like a crime to be in a slump here. Hank is worth 8.5 just like people say Phaneuf is worth 7.5 and just like people saying Callahan is worth 5 mil. I'll take Hank and his 8.5 over Phaneuf and/or Callahan at 7.5 or 5. Teams lock up their best players and Sather did. Be happy. A couple more mil isnt doing **** for this team but signing the next Pyatt or Pouliot.

We would be like Chelsea fc

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Tollefsen: There was no reason for Sather to bid against nobody for Lundqvist's next contract. If Lundqvist is not the same guy you remember from the past seasons, then he's wasted money and cap space. If he turns out to be that same great goalie, he's just jumped the gun.

Now if Lundqvist is not the same guy, he is untradable. Now your team is worse.

Sather overreacted and paid too much too soon. What else is new?

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

We would be like Chelsea fc

Not that I follow the Premier League so closely anymore but from what I remember, the Rangers are already like Chelsea. Except not as succesful.

The NYR are a mercenary roosting place. When you're done you sign large with the NYR and take it easy. Send your kids to good prep schools. Buy a boat...

Isn't Lundqvist a sailor, actually?

 

[aufheben]

Psh I wish we were Chelsea. More like Stoke City.

 

[Fataldogg]

Yes but he always needs to fix his positioning. That is CLEARLY off. Another thing is, Hanke is the best 1 on 1 player in the league and he hasn't shown it this year when you see breakaways and the shootouts. Again that comes back to his positioning. I think real hockey people even the media will just think this is an abarition this season. People need to get a grip if Cam Talbot if the future of this team. I would like to play the hell out of him and sell high on him.

No one will give up much for Talbot. So, selling high on him is extremely unrealistic. Just like no one will give up significant assets to acquire Jones or even Harding (who is having his first elite season).

Talbot has played 11 games. Outside of that, he is a perennial AHL goaltender. No GM is going to give up a 1st round pick + upper echelon prospect for him. I don't even think a GM would give up one or the other for him.

Why would you trade, for example, your top 18/19 year old prospect, for a 27 year old AHL goaltender, whose stats are padded by playing against the lower end teams in a tight Rangers defensive system (yes, the team does actually play quality defense in front of him).

Unless Talbot plays 35-40 games this season, and is lights out, then NEXT season GM's will give him consideration.

I think some fans on here are delusional as to the value that Talbot has.

Rangers would still get a bigger return on Lundqvist, because most GM's would see this as an irregularity for Lundqvist, not the rule, and would be willing to gamble on him if he returns to elite form (which is to be expected).

Players are allowed to have bad years. Even Lundqvist. This whole place is just blowing up because he hasn't had one (which is impressive in itself).

What should fans be saying about Nash (an "elite" 40 goal power forward w/ a combination of size/hands/talent that is rarely seen), Callahan (the heart and soul American Captain who has willed his team's to victory in the past, a player who has gotten Selke caliber recognition in the past), Girardi (once considered one of the top shut down / stay at home defense men in the entire NHL), or Richards (former Conn Smythe winner who has put up multiple 80+ point seasons).

Guys have bad years. Everyone I just mentioned is having a bad year. And they're all supposed to be pivotal pieces to the team's success.

 

[Clausewitz]

Psh I wish we were Chelsea. More like Stoke City.

Maybe Ivanovic is the RD we've been searching for a while now ...

 

[TollefsenFan]

Psh I wish we were Chelsea. More like Stoke City.

Should sign Tony Pulis

 

[TollefsenFan]

Not that I follow the Premier League so closely anymore but from what I remember, the Rangers are already like Chelsea. Except not as succesful.

The NYR are a mercenary roosting place. When you're done you sign large with the NYR and take it easy. Send your kids to good prep schools. Buy a boat...

Isn't Lundqvist a sailor, actually?

Nah. The rangers is more like Liverpool fc. An old Club that struggled for several years because of poor signings and stupid management. Both teams were carried by a goalie (Reina and Hank). Both goalies has struggled lately. Both had a star not long ago that left the team and started sucking (Torres and Gabby).

Edmonton is like Millwall. Just crap.

 

[aufheben]

So...Ryan McDonagh is our Steven Gerrard?

 

[Cassano]

Nah. The rangers is more like Liverpool fc. An old Club that struggled for several years because of poor signings and stupid management. Both teams were carried by a goalie (Reina and Hank). Both goalies has struggled lately. Both had a star not long ago that left the team and started sucking (Torres and Gabby).

Edmonton is like Millwall. Just crap.

Torres was sold for a hefty return and that return was used to buy the current best player in the leauge, Suarez. Gaborik well.... the return is hardly comparable.

But I do like the Chelsea analogy, except not quite as successful.

 

[Clausewitz]

So...Ryan McDonagh is our Steven Gerrard?

I'd actually liken him to Ivanovic (but now we're back to Chelsea). Both McD and he think their sports extremely well, have defensive abilities to spare, and are more than capable offensive contributors. I'd say the major difference between the two (adjusting for the nature of their sports) is strength: there aren't too many RBs or LBs stronger than Ivanovic.

 

[Doctyl]

Just realized that hank has a .908 sv% this season. we are all *****ing about him and the main boards has kicked him out of the top 5 goalies in the league. how the hell does quick post a .902 last year and a .905 this year and stay in the top 3?

 

[Jabroni]

Just realized that hank has a .908 sv% this season. we are all *****ing about him and the main boards has kicked him out of the top 5 goalies in the league. how the hell does quick post a .902 last year and a .905 this year and stay in the top 3?

Most people think in the line of "What have you done for me lately?".

 

[Doctyl]

Most people think in the line of "What have you done for me lately?".

which is kinda my point. Quick and Rinne have been horrible yet they are still considered among the top, but when hank has a rough 30 games hes done. it makes no sense.

 

[haveandare]

Tollefsen: There was no reason for Sather to bid against nobody for Lundqvist's next contract. If Lundqvist is not the same guy you remember from the past seasons, then he's wasted money and cap space. If he turns out to be that same great goalie, he's just jumped the gun.

Now if Lundqvist is not the same guy, he is untradable. Now your team is worse.

Sather overreacted and paid too much too soon. What else is new?

Sather was bidding against what people would have offered Hank had he become a FA. Every GM does the same thing with every FA signed before they hit the market. Let's say Hank is pleased to stay here for 8, Sather decides to let him test the market, and all of a sudden the Pens are going to give him 8.5, and the Blues want to give him 9. Obviously I'm just making this up, but these are the kinds of things that make GMs sign FAs before they hit market. If you can get them for a fair price without them knowing what other, maybe more promising, teams are going to give them, you do it.

On Hank not being the same player, look at literally every elite goalie in the last few years. Not one of them has avoided slumping for a season here or there. It's almost more regular to have a goalie be good for one or two years than suck for the rest of their career. The fact that Hank now having a bad year at 31 is a new story is a testament tot his absurd consistency up until now. He will bounce back, and when he does, it won't be that Sather jumped the gun, it'll be that he FINALLY singed a pending FA before the absolute last minute.

Sather did what any competent (kinda surprising actually, since he's so bad at almost everything else) GM ever would do with the backbone of their franchise approaching FA status and signed him before he knew what other offers were out there.

 

[NewLife]

This is getting real bad, we comparing us to Liverpool FC now?

On a second thought is kinda truth. ****.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Sather was bidding against what people would have offered Hank had he become a FA. Every GM does the same thing with every FA signed before they hit the market. Let's say Hank is pleased to stay here for 8, Sather decides to let him test the market, and all of a sudden the Pens are going to give him 8.5, and the Blues want to give him 9. Obviously I'm just making this up, but these are the kinds of things that make GMs sign FAs before they hit market. If you can get them for a fair price without them knowing what other, maybe more promising, teams are going to give them, you do it.

On Hank not being the same player, look at literally every elite goalie in the last few years. Not one of them has avoided slumping for a season here or there. It's almost more regular to have a goalie be good for one or two years than suck for the rest of their career. The fact that Hank now having a bad year at 31 is a new story is a testament tot his absurd consistency up until now. He will bounce back, and when he does, it won't be that Sather jumped the gun, it'll be that he FINALLY singed a pending FA before the absolute last minute.

Sather did what any competent (kinda surprising actually, since he's so bad at almost everything else) GM ever would do with the backbone of their franchise approaching FA status and signed him before he knew what other offers were out there.

Well, we have to disagree. I think it was a bad move and bad reasoning. Everything you said could have been accomplished later in the season after further evaluation of the player's reaction to the new system.

The amount awarded presupposed competition to sign the player to a certain amount, as well. If, on the open market, he gets offers of $9 million, it gives the Rangers a chance to walk away laughing that a competitor has made a massive error in roster management. Instead, the Rangers have given Lundqvist virtually top-dollar without competition.

This has also boxed the Rangers in by converting a tradeable asset into an immovable fixture.

Additionally, it is almost axiomatic that these top-tier long-term deals given to players in their thirties (and sometimes even earlier!) end up hamstringing the awarding team after only a few seasons. See Richards and Nash - currently both have problematic contracts. If Lundqvist's play stays poor either this season (still to be seen if this is a "slump" or the beginning of a long-term decline related to systems), or collapses a season or three hence, the contract will be a massive issue.

 

[haveandare]

Well, we have to disagree. I think it was a bad move and bad reasoning. Everything you said could have been accomplished later in the season after further evaluation of the player's reaction to the new system.

The amount awarded presupposed competition to sign the player to a certain amount, as well. If, on the open market, he gets offers of $9 million, it gives the Rangers a chance to walk away laughing that a competitor has made a massive error in roster management. Instead, the Rangers have given Lundqvist virtually top-dollar without competition.

This has also boxed the Rangers in by converting a tradeable asset into an immovable fixture.

Additionally, it is almost axiomatic that these top-tier long-term deals given to players in their thirties (and sometimes even earlier!) end up hamstringing the awarding team after only a few seasons. See Richards and Nash - currently both have problematic contracts. If Lundqvist's play stays poor either this season (still to be seen if this is a "slump" or the beginning of a long-term decline related to systems), or collapses a season or three hence, the contract will be a massive issue.

Yeah, I definitely disagree with you here. For starters, I think the system thing is blown out of proportion. The team is playing like crap, that's the problem. The changes from system to system aren't as big as fans and posters make them out to be IMO.

This is the price of singing a top-talent in this league. You pay a lot and you cross your fingers that they don't suffer a freak injury. The Rangers had the luxury of signing arguably the most desirable player at the second most (behind C) desirable position in today's game without him knowing what other teams were going to offer.

You can think whatever you please, but if you think no other team was going to offer this much or more to Hank, perhaps to be on a team in a more desirable position, I think that's extremely unlikely. Paying slightly more for than NYR did for Hank, assuming he is in a slump and hasn't somehow lost the edge of his talent, would not be a massive error at all. The cap is going up and he's a huge, huge piece.

Again, you say there's no competition. There is competition. They just aren't allowed to say how much they're willing to offer him. Those are the rules of FA. You take the advantage when you have it.

Also, he's not "immovable" assuming that he rebounds. And again, a slumping season is not unusual for top tier goalies in todays game. If he takes his old form, or even just improves on his current play, he is every bit a tradable asset, especially when the cap rises. One bad half of one seasons doesn't negate years and years of top-tier play, not at 31 years old when we're talking about a goalie.

This team has two example of theses types of contracts in Richards and Nash. Nash has only been problematic for a portion of one season so far, and Richards' contract comes with an easy out that will be taken advantage of. Additionally, Hank has been far more consistent than both of them at a position that is far less physically taxing. Apples to oranges.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Yeah, I definitely disagree with you here. For starters, I think the system thing is blown out of proportion. The team is playing like crap, that's the problem. The changes from system to system aren't as big as fans and posters make them out to be IMO.

This is the price of singing a top-talent in this league. You pay a lot and you cross your fingers that they don't suffer a freak injury. The Rangers had the luxury of signing arguably the most desirable player at the second most (behind C) desirable position in today's game without him knowing what other teams were going to offer.

You can think whatever you please, but if you think no other team was going to offer this much or more to Hank, perhaps to be on a team in a more desirable position, I think that's extremely unlikely. Paying slightly more for than NYR did for Hank, assuming he is in a slump and hasn't somehow lost the edge of his talent, would not be a massive error at all. The cap is going up and he's a huge, huge piece.

Again, you say there's no competition. There is competition. They just aren't allowed to say how much they're willing to offer him. Those are the rules of FA. You take the advantage when you have it.

Also, he's not "immovable" assuming that he rebounds. And again, a slumping season is not unusual for top tier goalies in todays game. If he takes his old form, or even just improves on his current play, he is every bit a tradable asset, especially when the cap rises. One bad half of one seasons doesn't negate years and years of top-tier play, not at 31 years old when we're talking about a goalie.

This team has two example of theses types of contracts in Richards and Nash. Nash has only been problematic for a portion of one season so far, and Richards' contract comes with an easy out that will be taken advantage of. Additionally, Hank has been far more consistent than both of them at a position that is far less physically taxing. Apples to oranges.

So what's the advantage of jumping to extend him so quickly?

 

[Cake or Death]

So what's the advantage of jumping to extend him so quickly?

The potential of losing him for nothing certainly jumps to mind.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

The potential of losing him for nothing certainly jumps to mind.

Well, if that's what Sather thought, that was probably just nerves talking.

He could have been extended any time. There was no reason to rush into the massive extension.

Once again, the advantage of waiting would have been to learn whether or not Lundqvist was slumping, was having difficulties with the new system, or had some sort of lingering injury affecting him. If further evaluation found that Lundqvist was having problems with the system, he could even have become a tradeable asset.

If the kinks in his game worked out over the winter, he gets extended. Big deal. You just made a smart, patient decision, Sather.

If Lundqvist proves to be in some sort of long-term decline this deal will be a huge problem for years.

 

[nyr5186]

I have no problem with the terms or the timing of Lundqvists deal. It was going to have to get done anyway, why wait till the summer? Proactive move by Sather, signing your franchise player in the midst of the worst slump of his career in the hopes of settling him down a bit. Ofcourse nobody knows if the lack of a contract was affecting his game (id like to think it wasnt), but dont you think it would be a huge confidence boost if your employer rewarded you for your long-time excellence even if you maybe didnt deserve it for your most recent work?

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

... but dont you think it would be a huge confidence boost if your employer rewarded you for your long-time excellence even if you maybe didnt deserve it for your most recent work?

I'd call that positive reinforcement. In other words, he's rewarded for being off... not that that's the dynamic in play, but it could be seen another way.

Sather woudln't have to wait until summer. He could have signed him in January or February, for instance, waiting to see whether Lundqvist could turn his season around or whether something more (?) would be exposed.